On 14-05-14 03:41 PM, Jeroen Hofstee wrote:
Hello Darwin,
On wo, 2014-05-14 at 15:05 -0700, Darwin Rambo wrote:
+#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64
- /*
* Fix relocation if u-boot is not on an aligned address.*/- {
int offset = CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE % 4096;if (offset) {addr += offset;debug("Relocation Addr bumped to 0x%08lx\n", addr);}- }
+#endif
Do you really want to check a define at runtime? Placement is typically at the end of RAM and allocation goes down, not up as in this patch. Aren't you overlapping memory here?
Yes, I wanted the runtime check since the adjustment to the relocation address is also done at runtime.
There is no overlap here. The reason is that the original masking operation to mask to a 4K boundary removed the small offset and backed up too far. So adding the lost offset is guaranteed to not overlap, and furthermore, correct the relocation offset so that arm64 images can run at smaller alignments than we normally use. This might even be a generic fix but can't be tested easily by me.
static int setup_reloc(void) { +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64
- /*
* Fix relocation if u-boot is not on an aligned address.*/- int offset = CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE % 4096;
- if (offset) {
gd->relocaddr += offset;debug("Relocation Addr bumped to 0x%08lx\n", gd->relocaddr);- }
+#endif gd->reloc_off = gd->relocaddr - CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE; memcpy(gd->new_gd, (char *)gd, sizeof(gd_t));
This is a generic file, hell breaks loose if you start using arch / board / pre bootloader specific workarounds here afaiac.
I don't disagree with this statement. Please see my other comments to Wolfgang on this topic.
lucky for you, I am not a u-boot maintainer, but this looks at least a bit weird, glancing at it.
Regards, Jeroen
Thanks for your comments Jeroen. They are appreciated. Darwin